Gaps in Safety within LGBTQ+ Leisure Spaces for Diverse LGBTQ+ People: White Homonormativity and Considerations for Inclusion in Safe Spaces Tin D. Vo, MPH, PhD candidate, Faculty of Social Work, Wilfrid Laurier University, Canada Abstract Given the white homonormativity of LGBTQ+ leisure spaces, diverse LGBTQ+ people (such as cisgender lesbian, bisexual, and queer (LBQ) women, transgender and gender nonconforming (TGNC) individuals, and racialized LGBTQ+ people) have been found to have social and health inequities within LGBTQ+ leisure spaces due to their intersectionality as racial, sexual, and gender minorities, among other social identities. LGBTQ+ leisure spaces, such as LGBTQ+ community centres and recreation groups, provide opportunities for identity development and contribute to the overall well-being of LGBTQ+ people. These so-called ‘safe spaces,’ however, can be sites of discrimination for diverse LGBTQ+ people, arguably due to dominant groups reinforcing whiteness and white privilege in those spaces. This article presents literature that critiques LGBTQ+-specific safe spaces and provides recommendations for the practice of inclusion within these spaces for diverse LGBTQ+ people. Given the potential positive outcomes associated with LGBTQ+ leisure spaces, a better understanding of problematic LGBTQ+ leisure spaces is vital for professionals in social work and allied fields to develop interventions and policies for use within those spaces that support LGBTQ+ people’s overall well-being, as well as consider frameworks of diversity and inclusion. To construct inclusive LGBTQ+ leisure spaces for diverse LGBTQ+ people, an interrogation and deconstruction of both heteronormativity and homonormativity are necessary within and outside those settings. This can be done through the creation of safer spaces, such as “counterspaces.” Keywords Homonormativity; discrimination; intersectionality; LGBTQ+ people; safe spaces; inclusion Introduction LGBTQ+1 leisure spaces are socially and culturally constructed venues, both virtual and physical, where LGBTQ+ people spend their free time (Goldberg, 2016; Iwasaki, 2008). These spaces offer LGBTQ+ people opportunities to develop their sexual and/or gender identities and contribute to their overall well-being (Goldberg, 2016; Kubicek et al., 2013; Valentine & Skelton, 2003). LGBTQ+ leisure spaces might be commercial, such as circuit dance parties, gay bars, and saunas/bath houses, or community-based, such as LGBTQ+ community centres, LGBTQ+ sports and recreation clubs, and ball events (Doderer, 2011; Goldberg, 2016). These spaces are considered safe spaces where LGBTQ+ people can escape heterosexism and cisgenderism (Lewis & Johnson, 2011; Monro, 2010), freely express themselves (Goldberg, 2016; Kubicek et al., 2013), and develop a sense of community (Arnold et al., 2018; Kubicek et al., 2013; Valentine & Skelton, 2003); these outcomes are important for a person’s well-being. As such, LGBTQ+ leisure spaces contribute to LGBTQ+ people’s resilience. While LGBTQ+ leisure spaces might be considered sources that build resilience and can help LGBTQ+ people overcome or evade systemic oppression related to their sexual identity, these same settings might not be safe for individuals who hold multiple marginal identities, as the intersectionality of these identities contributes to differing experiences and outcomes than for those who have dominant identities (Bowleg, 2013; McCall, 2005; McConnell et al., 2018). Racialized LGBTQ+ people experience discrimination, including heterosexism and racism, in the general population, the LGBTQ+ communities, and their racial communities (Balsam et al., 2015; Han, 2007; Jaspal, 2017). Similarly, cisgender lesbian, bisexual, and queer (cis-LBQ) women, transgender and gender nonconforming (TGNC) individuals experience other forms of oppression, such as sexism and cisgenderism, within the general population and LGBTQ+ communities (Toomey et al., 2017; Wilkens, 2016). This marginalization is due to actions perpetrated by these individuals’ peers and organizational leaders, as well as organizational norms and practices, all of which can potentially threaten an individual’s social well-being2 in these spaces and their overall mental health. The purpose of this article is to critique LGBTQ+-specific safe spaces and provide recommendations for the practice of inclusion within these spaces for diverse LGBTQ+ people, including cis-LBQ women, TGNC individuals, and racialized LGBTQ+ people. This article 1 LGBTQ+ is used in this paper to include all diverse sexual and gender minorities. The plus (+) is intended to represent additional identities not identified in the preceding acronym, as well as the diverse lived experiences of members of the LGBTQ+ community. In essence, the plus symbolizes love, acceptance, and the embracing of everyone in the LGBTQ+ community. 2 Social well-being is defined as the ability to function in society and can encompass a variety of dimensions, including social integration, social contribution, social coherence, social actualization, and social acceptance (Keyes, 1998). This study conceptualizes social well-being as social integration and social acceptance within LGBTQ+ leisure spaces. 1 presents literature that describe issues related to understanding whether it would be reasonable to expect LGBTQ+ leisure spaces to be inclusive spaces for diverse LGBTQ+ people, while addressing concerns of a white homonormativity that exists within LGBTQ+ leisure spaces (Carter & Baliko, 2017; Duggan, 2002; Nash, 2013). This paper applies intersectionality to social work and leisure studies research that examines the experiences of diverse LGBTQ+ people within LGBTQ+ leisure spaces, particularly around their inclusion and oppression within these spaces. The paper starts by outlining intersectionality and diverse LGBTQ+ people, describing how LGBTQ+ leisure spaces are both safe and detrimental for participants, discussing what white homonormativity looks like within LGBTQ+ leisure spaces, and concluding with considerations for inclusion and safety in LGBTQ+ leisure spaces. Better understanding of problematic LGBTQ+ leisure spaces is vital for professionals in social work and allied fields to understand the nuanced lived experiences of diverse LGBTQ+ people, informing their micro, meso, and macro-level practices with diverse LGBTQ+ people and LGBTQ+ community leaders. Furthermore, this deeper understanding will support the development of interventions and policies that contribute to diverse LGBTQ+ people’s overall well-being, as well as consider frameworks of diversity and inclusion. Intersectionality and Diverse LGBTQ+ People Race and gender (among other identities) compound the experiences of LGBTQ+ individuals. Unfortunately, much of the scholarship on sexual identity and heterosexism has often lacked considerations of intersectionality (Carastathis, 2016), whereby the multiplicity of identities and concomitant systems of power interact to contribute to individuals’ understanding of the world (Collins & Bilge, 2016). Conceptualizations of identities cannot be understood in isolation from context, such that identities vary in importance depending on the context (e.g., as people age, entry into different environments) and shape individuals’ experiences across different contexts (Bowleg, 2013; Chan & Erby, 2018). This variation is due to the existence of power and the interactions with systems of domination in those settings. Collins and Bilge (2016) proposed a framework for intersectionality as an analytic tool, describing: social inequality (e.g., examine injustices across various social identities), relationality (e.g., study interconnections through a both/and perspective), power (e.g., look at power dynamics across the different domains), social context (e.g., contextualize experiences via an analysis of the environment), complexity (e.g., analyze the multifaceted world), and social justice (e.g., seek fairness in/through the inquiry). Collins and Bilge (2016) also described intersectionality as an analytic tool that functions simultaneously as critical inquiry and praxis; both of which are used as an approach for conducting research and an instrument for empowering people to influence social change. That is, intersectionality is not just used to describe phenomena, but also to take a stand against injustices. In a way, intersectionality seeks to decolonize spaces through its interrogation of power and processes that create systems of domination (Carastathis, 2016). This decolonizing 2 work involves moving beyond discourses of identity and differences to questioning the existing dominant structures and historical colonialism that produce those identities and differences (Caratathis, 2016; Collins & Bilge, 2016). Furthermore, the use of intersectionality can be decolonizing by creating space for marginalized knowledge and lived experiences to flourish, while also ensuring dominant and colonial structures are interrogated. Intersectionality arose from the work of Black feminists (Carastathis, 2016; Collins & Bilge, 2016; McCall, 2005; Parent et al., 2013), and has informed the field of social work to better address the needs of diverse populations. Intersectionality is well-connected to social work due to the field’s history of critical praxis, where theory and practice are interconnected (Collins & Bilge, 2016). Unfortunately, intersectionality research that connects gender identity, sexual identity, and race/ethnicity has been limited (Parent et